Friday, May 13, 2016

Factual mistakes in Vatican Council II are not noted on the SSPX website

The magisterium made an error in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case and the error has been placed all over Vatican Council II. Subjective cases are asssumed to be objective.We can re- read Vatican Council II's subjective citations ( LG 16, LG 8 etc) as being hypothetical only but still the placing of LG 16, LG 8 etc in Vatican Council II was an error.

Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II, among others, assumed that they were references to objective cases and so were 'practical exceptions', known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).They were also exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors, on salvation for non Catholics and non Christians.

Hypothetical cases in the text of Vatican Council II were practical exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors teachings on other religions and Christian communities i.e there was known salvation outside the Church (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc) and so all do not formally need to enter the Church for salvation.

Subjective cases ( baptism of desire etc) mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 were considered to be exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.The magisterium made a mistake.

Also for Fr.Francois Laisney on the SSPX official website 1 hypothetical cases are 'practical exceptions' to EENS.There are 'physically visible' exceptions.

1.He also assumes that hypothetical cases (LG 16 etc) in Vatican Council II are practical exceptions to EENS.

2.He also accepts the irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and so interprets Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors, EENS etc).

This is the new liberal theology snug on the SSPX website.Even Fr.Matthias Gaudron SSPX, Germany who criticizes subjectivity interpreted as being objective, in Amoris Laetitia, interprets the Letter ( 1949) and Vatican Council II with the same subjectivism. He is in line with the popes.

Fr.Gaudron too assumes there are known exceptions to EENS as does Fr. Francois Laisney.

Still, the bottom line is that there is a mistake in Vatican Council II.An irrational premise ( visible people in Heaven without the baptism of water) was used to reach an irrational and non traditional conclusion ( every one does not need to formally enter the Church) and it is now part of the text of Vatican Council II.LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3, AG 11( seeds of the Word) etc are all part of the exceptions-theory.

With reference to salvation how can we any more use Vatican Council II as a reference and not issue a clarification? How can we cite the Council at random knowing there is an objective mistake?

With goodwill we can accept LG 16, LG 8 etc as being hypothetical but the fact that LG 16, LG 8 etc was placed in Vatican Council II means it was a mistake.It was a philosophical mistake, an irrational reasoning.Then upon this mistake a new doctrine ( only those who know need to enter the Church-LG 14) and a new theology ( outside the Church there is known salvation- Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

The irrational philosophy and new theology was confirmed recently by Pope Benedict when he said EENS is no more like it was in the 16th century.For the popes, LG 16 is objective and not subjective, visible and not invisible,seen in the flesh and not hypothetical.So LG 16 contradicts the 16th century concept of EENS.Fr.Francois Laisney and Fr. Matthias Gaudron, Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci( SSSP Superior Italy) and other priests make the same irrational observation.They follow Bishop Bernard Fellay and Mons. Marcel Lefebvre in the error.This is the same mistake made by Cardinal Gerhard Muller.1

At Vatican Council II they did not know that the magisterium made a mistake, an objective mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.The error, which has resulted in a new theology with a new doctrine, is there in the text of Vatican Council II.

The SSPX website does not refer to this factual error in Vatican Council II.

Someone could ask the two popes to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and acknowledge that there is a mistake in the text.

They could ask the two popes to affirm the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries using citations of support from Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14- all need faith and baptism).

They must ask the two popes to interpret moral and salvation theology without subjectivism.